Saturday, December 18, 2010

All right, I'm a bit late with my first return post. I just didn't have any inspiration yesterday evening. I still don't right now, so I'm going to have to force it.

It has just suddenly occurred to me to write about state-funded education.

State-funded education sucks. At best it does a poorer job than the free market could do unhindered, and at worst it is actively indoctrinating children with a statist-authoritarian world-view. I don't know about you, but I'm not at all thrilled about that.

First, let's pretend that the State schools are not indoctrinating children. The trouble here is that the government is crowding out a market-driven alternative. Consumers must be permitted to make choices about what goods they will consume. Otherwise the market cannot function. There is a market for education, just like every other good or service. Private schools mostly cater to the upper class, because they are able to present a niche market not currently fulfilled by government schools. There's nothing at all wrong with that, but the fact is that there isn't enough private alternatives. Without state schools, we would see the same upper class private schools, as well as less expensive schools catering to the blue collar working class, and absolutely everything in between. It is also entirely natural to suggest that there would be a variety of non-profit and not-for-profit schools that would be dedicated to providing heavily discounted, and even free education to poor families. Non profit schools would of course be financed by churches, wealthy philanthropists (this is not farfetched, as there are plenty of philanthropists around already, and there would be even more without our punitive government taxation regime), and corporate sponsors (again, a very realistic expectation).

Second, without government intervention, the quality of educators would steadily increase. Yes, there are good teachers out there now. I'm a product of the public schooling system in Canada, and I met enough of them. The problem is that there aren't enough. Performance is not rewarded under our system. Creativity and initiative are not rewarded. What is rewarded is experience. The union system, which is not a product of the free market, but rather a government-backed extortionist system, makes it quite literally impossible to punish poor performance of teachers, especially "experienced" teachers. A teacher who has been in the system for any moderate amount of time is nearly impossible to fire, barring something extraordinary like sexual abuse or theft, so no matter how awful they are as teachers, they move through the system and end up "experienced", at which point they quite possibly become administrators. We can only hope that as administrators they have less and less access to the educating aspect of their jobs.

In a market-driven education system, quality teachers would be rewarded with higher pay, better positions, and better working conditions. Poor teachers would receive lower pay, lower positions, and may be fired if their performance is considered lacking. Performance would be judged by a combination of grades, student feedback, and parent feedback. It would be within the best interests of both the schools and the parents to have in place objective criteria for evaluation, and steps would be taken to ensure that dishonest teachers could not "game the system", which is quite common in my own experience. I've heard stories of teachers changing low marks, disallowing certain lower performing students from writing standardized tests, etc..

Under this system, higher performing students may well be offered discounted tuition or scholarships to attend more elite schools, as their performance would reflect well on the teachers and the school itself. Lower performing students would not be neglected. They would simply enrol in a lower tier school, or in an alternative specialized program that caters to their particular difficulties.

Of course I haven't even mentioned homeschooling, which is a perfectly acceptable choice. In a free system we would see a greater number of homeschooling collectives which would pool resources and talents and capital, to teach their children on their own, or in some cases hire private tutors.

Finally, and possibly most importantly, is the fact that the State is currently in complete control of curriculum. In Canada it is illegal to attempt to circumvent this system; even homeschoolers are forced to abide by the arbitrary State-mandated lessons. Do you think the State is going to teach in a fair and objective manner when it comes to its own actions? To expect honesty from the systems that have without exception lied and cheated and defrauded their subjects since their inception is ludicrous. Is the State going to sanction lessons that expose central banking for the fraud-driven counterfeiter that it is? Will the State ever present legitimate free-market economics in a fair light? I hadn't even heard of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, et. al. until about this time last year. My school education started with Adam Smith, then immediately launched into how well Keynes and Friedman corrected the poor ignorant radical that he was. Our State sponsored lesson plans never once touched upon the problems inherent in the command-economy systems. In fact I distinctly remember the Soviet economy being presented as a tradeoff between stability (under the communist system) and uneven high profits (in a capitalist system). Well the only thing stable about the Soviet economy was that you knew exactly how expensive the goods were, even when there were none on the shelves, and there hadn't been for weeks at a time. In fact the most stable thing is probably that there were no goods on the shelf in the first place.

State curriculum indoctrinates students to accept without question the coercive power of the government. It indoctrinates students to accept the central banks, and war after war after war, and arbitrary tyrannical laws as the price that is paid for "freedom", or "security". In fact, we are every single day sacrificing our freedom and our security to a State which cares only about lining its pockets and lording over its subjects. We're never going to be taught any alternative lessons though. Not if the State is in charge.

It's very hard to want freedom when Big Brother tells you that you've already got it. It's hard to want to live outside the influence of the State when the State tells you day after day that your life depends upon its benevolent intervention. It's especially hard when you tell the children these things every day from the age of about five to eighteen, or even upwards of twenty five and twenty six for master's and PhD students. Where is the critical thinking? Where is the personal initiative? The State thinks for us, until we choose to live otherwise.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.186 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."187 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.188

To be clear, I am Catholic, and I believe everything taught by the Catholic Church that falls within Her competency. Proper understanding of this passage is key.

"Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good." Well sure political authority does. So does private authority. Remember, authority ≠ power.

If a man is threatening me with a gun, I have the authority and the right to take that gun, even if it belongs to him. So too does government. That is legitimate regulation of the use of private property.

Good cheese is clearly a basic human right.

We believe in the universal destination of goods. Man has the right to have his basic needs met. In return he has the obligation to, inasmuch as he is able, earn those basic needs. If, due to circumstances beyond his control, he cannot earn those needs, he still possesses the right to them, however if he willfully rejects the possibility of earning those needs, so too does he forfeit his rights to them.

All men, and therefore government as well, have the authority to regulate the right to private goods in this manner.

What may never be approved of is aggression or violence against those who infringe upon nobody's rights. The State commits this violence when it dictates that you must help fund abortions, or that you must fund contraceptives, or that you must fund projects of questionable economic benefit (such as social security, federal health departments, and state-run education). Not only does this not contribute to the common good, it actively infringes upon it, both through the policies being funded themselves, and the inherent violence used to secure the necessary funds.

Sir, we noticed that you forgot to pay your income taxes this year.

I'll add as a sidenote, that #2405 above is hardly even worth framing in a market libertarian perspective. The only way to benefit the greatest number is through the workings of the market. The State has no right to arrogate themselves to this 'duty', and even if it did, we have seen time and again how spectacularly it fails.

Monday, December 6, 2010

I make a distinction between legality and morality. There are many things which are both legal and moral, and quite a few which are illegal and immoral. In between, there are acts which are illegal and moral, and acts which are immoral and legal.
Not everything which is immoral should be illegal. It would be immoral and downright lousy for me to promise to pick my friend up from the airport if I have no intention of doing so, yet to make a law that addresses this would be the height of absurdity and tyranny.
Likewise, many of our laws address things which are not immoral. There is nothing inherently immoral about running a stop sign. If there are no cars or pedestrians around, this action carries no moral weight. (On the other hand, if the roads are covered with a layer of sheer ice, as is often the case in Calgary, it may very well be dangerous to attempt a full stop.) An arbitrary law does not bring a moral dimension to an inherently amoral action (an action which lacks a moral dimension).

Just as I make a distinction between legality and morality, I make another distinction between power and authority. Power is the ability to act, and is amoral. Authority the moral element, which determines whether or not use of power is legitimate.
One can have authority and power, or lack either or both of these elements. The State and the State's police force have power, but authority is not guaranteed. The State does not create its own authority, and a 51% majority does not create authority.

"[T]here is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (CCC 1899)
What does this passage mean? Well first I will say very certainly: it does not mean that the State has authority given to it by God. The State can have authority, but it does not necessarily possess it.

One has authority when he stands for morality and natural law. I have morality when I defend myself, or my family, or my friends from aggression at the hands of a criminal. The Pope has authority when he speaks on behalf of the unborn. The Canadian government and the American Government have no authority whatsoever when they fund abortions, or recognize them as a "right". They have no authority when they tell you what you can eat, or drink, or buy, or by what methods you may protect yourself.

The governments have power though, and if we don't listen, we will be fined. If we don't pay their graft, we will be imprisoned. If we resist, we will be killed. So we listen, down the barrel of a gun wrapped in the guise of "the common good".

Now I finally get to the point which I had set out to make:A legitimate State may act with no more authority than any single individual possesses.

Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself (CCC 1902), so therefore any State may only do what its citizens already have the moral authority to do themselves. Nobody, not even the State, has the authority to do or enforce that which is immoral. The State has the power to do so, which it has continually exercised, however when we resist tyranny, we do so with authority (if not with power).

Everybody, whether appointed by the State or not, may only do that which is moral.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Today I wanted to share a band that I enjoy listening to, called 16 Horsepower.

Wikipedia describes 16 Horsepower as alternative country, and I would be inclined to specify it as dark roots or black folk.
This song is, in my opinion, the best example of their sound:

They are very distinctly country, but with a dark tone that calls to mind dark cabaret and even the industrial sound.

It's a style of music that I think I want to learn how to play. What it seems like to me is the kind of thing that I've tried to play in the past, not quite realizing what it was, so therefore not quite actualizing the style I was approaching.

This is a picture of my guitar:

(The one on the left is the one I currently play.)
It really seems to fit for a bit of country twang, as well as anywhere from mellow folk to some really crunchy buzzed rock. It's got a lovely tone, especially when I'm pushing the amp beyond volumes at which it's still comfortable. It's an old amp and it's starting to give up on me, but in the meantime it has an awesome natural overdrive if I just turn the volume up.

The music I'm most influenced by is darker country, like 16 Horsepower, and especially Johnny Cash's later work on American recordings. After that I'm influenced by such bands/musicians as Social Distortion and Rancid, Steve Wynn, Tom Petty, The Trews, some of R.E.M., XTC, etc.. I'm sure I'll think of a bunch more after I publish this post, but such is life.

I'm a big fan of the sound of slide guitar. I love fiddling around with an open tuned acoustic and a slide. I'm not particularly good at it, but I wish I was. There's so much that can be done with a good lap steel. Given the free time someday in the future, that's first on my list to learn. Second is country/folk violin, but I imagine that would be a lot harder.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Over the last year, I've almost completely lost faith in the political system. This has happened mostly thanks to one very influential individual that I met online, and since then many authors of a similar mindset whom I have searched out.
I've been spending some time on LewRockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute and have come to identify with many of the opinions presented there.

Most of them are of the anarcho-capitalist persuasion. At a very basic level, the idea is that coercive government is corrupt and harmful and should be abolished, and that the free market will thereby be permitted to assert itself and (in both a moral and efficient way) serve legitimately the common good.

I don't want to talk about anarcho-capitalism right at this moment though. I would rather outline the reasons I have lost faith in Government (as we see it today).

Morally speaking, I simply cannot find a way to justify or legitimize in my own mind any modern government.
I agree very strongly with St. Augustine when he said that "an unjust law is no law at all." I believe that we are not morally compelled to obey an unjust law, and may in fact be obligated to disobey.

The modern theory of government seems to be based on the concept that the majority opinion lends legitimacy to an organization that may thereby act with more authority than the sum authority of it individual members. Well my first problem with this is the majority opinion. A majority opinion gave us the Nazi Party and the Holocaust. A majority opinion gave us (in the past) slavery and segregation.
The majority opinion has no moral authority.

No organization, governments included, can possibly have more authority than any individual. I cannot take thirty percent of your income to use for whatever projects I think it is best suited for, and nor can the government. I have no authority to tell you what you can and can't drink, what goods you can buy, and what associations you may join, but the government has decided that it may. This is wrong. This idea of legitimate governmental authority is in fact moral relativism under one of its most subtle guises. It tells us that what is wrong for us becomes right when it comes from higher up. It's crap.

After recognizing all this and processing it, I've been forced to conclude that our modern system of government has zero authority in and of itself. It does not derive authority from itself, and it does not exercise legitimate moral authority which comes from outside itself. Once recognizing this, everything else just slowly fell apart. That's where I am now. In every issue I've examined so far, the radical libertarianism has beat out the traditional statist arguments. One of the first to go was the fractional reserve banking system, then the drinking age, then minimum wages, then copyright... No telling what's next.

So what do we do with an illegitimate and corrupt power system? Well I don't know yet. Passive resistance? One thing I know for sure is that we as individuals must assert our own moral authority. We have the authority to educate and raise our children, to defend ourselves, to enjoy the fruits of our labour, and to hold and express any opinion we please. We should never submit to The State just because The State said so. We submit to moral law and legitimate authority (which always go hand in hand) and nothing else.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

I knew this would happen. :P It's been over two months since my last update. Two lovely months.
I think I'm going to try to keep on top of it this time. I'm going to shoot for one update a week. Give or take a few days. I'll probably slip a few more times and let another few months go by, but I'll get better, I'm sure.

It also strikes me as almost certain that nobody is reading this blog right now. I guess I'll have to change that, gradually. For now, I'll talk to myself. I feel silly doing it in real life, so I'll do it here in cyberspace.

I want to write tonight about the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) a.k.a. the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, a.k.a. (inaccurately) the Tridentine Rite, a.k.a. the Mass for crazy traditionalist Catholics who are probably some sort of mentally unstable because they actually like Latin stuff? Are you kidding me?
Yea, that. Love it.

My spirituality very much conforms to the TLM. The Novus Ordo doesn't do it for me, and hasn't for years. If I had the choice, I'd attend the EF exclusively, but I don't. Not yet.

I went to the TLM this past Sunday, the first week of Advent, and brought with me someone who had never been before. They didn't like it at all, which I find seriously disappointing. The first thing I heard was that "average people wouldn't get it." Nobody is going to understand it because it's in Latin. Well whatever.
Of course, the best comebacks occur to us far too late. No exception here. I thought of this one about three or four hours later. Way too late to make a difference then, but it's never too late to blog about it.

People understand the Novus Ordo? Well of course. There's nothing there that requires any particular kind of attention.

I love metaphors. Here's a good one: The Novus Ordo is grade one social studies, and the TLM is university economics. What did you learn in grade one social studies? I don't remember myself, but I imagine that I could have slept through the entire year and been no worse off. I could probably pick up the curriculum right now and write every test for that year in three hours.
Did grade one social studies have any kind of useful purpose in your life? I doubt it. I can't even vaguely remember what it was about. I think I'd have learned more reading the newspaper once than attending that class all throughout grade one.
University economics, on the other hand, is hard. It requires countless hours of studying. There is an enormous body of curriculum. There's depth, and there's applicability. A solid grounding in university economics is invaluable towards one's understanding of the business world. [For now we're going to pretend that university students exclusively learn good economics, which I've been told is not at all a given these days.]

So is there anything wrong with grade one social studies? No. It's all fine stuff to learn, I'm sure. Is it something to hold onto though? Is it something to devote oneself to? No, it is not.

There's nothing wrong, per se, with the Novus Ordo. I say that with some qualification, but it's close enough for the point I'm trying to make. There is a lot of good in the Novus Ordo. The thing is that there's so much more in the E.F., that the N.O. simply pales in comparison. The theology of the Novus Ordo is simple, easy, and tends to be uninspiring. The theology of the Extraordinary Form is multi-faceted, complex, deep, yes, confusing, and rich. We could (and should) spend a lifetime studying what is contained within that Mass.

In my opinion, the Novus Ordo is doing a disservice to those serious about their faith. We are a Church of bright young people trying desperately to reach our full potential via a very limited, and limiting, selected-by-committee Mass that all too often resembles a middle of the road Protestant service. I wouldn't spend my life mastering grade one social studies, and I'm not going to spend my life looking for something more challenging in the Novus Ordo.

So is the Traditional Latin Mass confusing? Yes, and proudly so.
It's time for Latin Catholicism to stand up and leave behind our overwhelming, inhibiting shallowness that is exemplified in an all too common, poorly celebrated Novus Ordo. Each and every one of us is more than intelligent enough to get something more out of our Mass. Some will understand more than others, to be sure, but everybody without exception, who approaches the Traditional Latin Mass with an open mind and an open heart will deepen their faith in the Church.

It's comfortable to doze in mediocrity, but to be comfortable in our faith is the last thing in the world we want. Every Catholic needs to be challenged and pushed and inspired to do better. No exceptions.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

I figured I'd take the time to explain the quote. It's ten past one in the morning right now as I start writing. I went to bed just past eleven, but after a good hour of tossing and turning I decided that I needed to tire myself out a bit more thoroughly.That quote that I have sitting on the top of my blog is one of my personal favourites. To start with, I really like Macbeth. Everyone in my high school system has to read three Shakespeare plays during their career of English classes. I went into those plays fully intending to enjoy them. Some people whine and complain about Shakespearean English. That bugs me. Don't knock it 'till you try it, right? Well I tried it. I had fun. Macbeth was my favourite easily, followed closely by Hamlet. Merchant of Venice wasn't as fun, but still enjoyable.That quote of mine is actually spoken by the witches as they try to convince Macbeth to murder the king. I try not to think about that bit. Shakespearean villains seem to have a history of giving good advice. There's Polonius in Hamlet, and nearly everybody in Merchant of Venice. This is no exception.So why do I like the quote so much? Well I use it as a sort of motto. An approach to life. To the first part, I believe in being decisive. If I were to let myself, I'd be poor at making decisions, so I make a conscious effort to make a choice then stick to it. I don't let myself regret it either, if it works out badly. Learn from it, of course, but never regret. Be resolute.The second part I like even more though... "Laugh to scorn the power of Man." That's perfect. That sums up everything. Man's power is temporary and fleeting. Everywhere in the world and throughout history we see Man trying to assert himself over fellow Man. This is Man at his weakest. Laugh to scorn his power. Laugh in the face of the temptations of this world: the materialism, the hedonism, the self-worship. Vanity of vanities; all is vanity (Ecclesiastes). The only true power is God's, and only comes to us through Him. Laugh at the rest, scorn the rest. That's what I want to do.As I finish writing and editing it's now 1:25. My eyes are feeling a bit heavier, which is a good sign. I have class at 9:30.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

I'm also going to be blogging for Life, Liturgy, and the Pursuit of Happiness with my awesome pals 'Antonius' and 'Fyrjefe' [ETA: also 'Ignatius']. We're going to write about matters liturgical in the Catholic Church.We intend to be the dumb little brother of the New Liturgical Movement. I'll be happy if we get a couple decent posts in there though.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Q. Who am I?A. The name I'll use while writing this blog is Irenaeus G. Saintonge. I'm a finance major at a western Canadian university.

Q. What is this blog about?
A. Anything that pops into my head at any given moment. I will write about my interests, my faith, my favourite music and TV shows, any whatever else about which I feel like addressing.

Q. Why the name?A. "Imprimatur" means "Let it be printed". Exclamation points denote excitement. I've never blogged before, so we'll see how it turns out.

A. Traditionalist Roman Catholic with, to the best of my ability, perfect fidelity to Rome.

Q. Why am I blogging?A. I don't know yet. Maybe I'm just one of those vain, egotistical people that likes talking about themselves. I don't know. Hopefully I can get something out of it, and maybe if I'm lucky you will too.